Forum:Image category policy
I believe it's time we take some accountability for our image categories here; currently there is much confusion and I find the mess to be unacceptable. Here is a proposal I will implement if it is agreed upon, for some changes for a policy on categories. It mostly pertains to characters, because that's what people have made image categories for, but leaves plenty of room for making future image categories better. First, look at the tons of character specific categories, such as Category:Images (David Palmer). There is one for Jack, one for Tony, and many others. Each of these will be categorized into Category:Images (characters), and also any of the following that may apply: # Images (CTU characters) # Images (deceased characters) # Images (living characters) # ... and any other broad character categories that may be created Then, the Category:Images (characters) will be added to Category:Images. The point here to grasp is that images themselves will never be categorized into anything other than character specific categories (this doesn't exclude random image categories that have nothing to do with characters, like Images (CNB) and Images (24: The Game)). This means no media will appear in the numbered categories above, nor in Category:Images (characters), nor even in Category:Images itself. All of these larger categories will be strictly repositories for subcategories. This follows the example of wikipedia, which restricts pages from being placed in some massive categories and uses them only for subcategories. I understand if this is confusing, so please ask any questions that come to mind. This is not a major change, it just makes categories infinitely more manageable. I'll probably start this in a few days if no comments are made. – Blue Rook 06:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)talk : With no objections or modifications, I'll move to add this to the Policy (specifically, the Manual of Style subchapter). I'll also include the standard way in which categories are listed on character pages for consistency (characters, then days and antagonists, then jobs from broadest to most specific, then status, etc.). It will be a relief to have this finally become policy. – Blue Rook 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)talk I have a few questions to ask about this: # For images such as Image:Alexiscassar.jpg, can we have an image catergory titled "Cast", as we have the "Crew" one. There is never going to be another image of Alexis Cassar, and this is the same for hundereds of other actors. it just seems to be an easy way to categorise them all. # For characters such as Image:Alice.jpg and Image:AnnaDay1.jpg, there will probably only ever be one image. Should we have a category to put all of those in, rather that giving them once each which will end up just being a waste of space? Thanks! SignorSimon 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC) : A category for cast would seem pretty good, but Proudhug and I discussed once earlier how ideally all of those IMDB images will be eventually replaced by pics from the show. That's why I never created a Fairuse tag for them, since they probably will be completely replaced anyway. That picture of Alexis Cassar? It isn't covered by our fairuse tags and we can't create one for it because we don't even know who has the copyright, so categorizing them might be a waste of time too. : For #2, I really never even thought of categorizing those kinds of images. Not every image needs a category. If I had to think of something, I'd say Images (minor characters)... but then there would be a big, problematic debate about how to define "minor", etc. – Blue Rook 04:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)talk Personally I think all images should be categorised. That way the Wiki will be more complete. Shall I make a minor characters image category for each day (easier to find the people you want as we may end up with lots), and make specific criteria for who should go there i.e. less than 3 images OR credited as guest star? SignorSimon 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) : But I don't buy the completeness argument on this. To take any image that has a minor character in it, and tag it with a minor-character-Day-X category, doesn't accomplish anything useful. The inclusion criteria would be arbitrary: we'd have to exclude unnamed extras but then include unnamed-with-actor-credit characters. Worse, a large number of these categories would overlap with images where Jack is standing next to... Jessie Hampton (or whoever), but we couldn't use it if Jack was standing in the middle a room full of other characters. It strikes me as categorization for the sake of categorizing. – Blue Rook 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)talk :: I see you went ahead with the cast images. Alright I guess. Just remember that categories are subject to the same capitalization policies as articles. The ones you made for books, crew, novels, cast, and vehicles have arbitrary caps in them. We need to follow the precedent of Category:Images (characters) and the ones for deceased, living, and unknown image categories for categs and the policy for article titles that don't have proper names in them. – Blue Rook 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)talk Aw damn, I'll go change them now. SignorSimon 19:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC) : Looks like I can't move them - what do we do? SignorSimon 19:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC) :: Yeah, unfortunately, categories can't be moved. You have to create the new one manually, change all of the links in every article, then delete the old one. --Proudhug 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ::: That always bugged me about wikis. I just can't understand why categories had to be hard-wired to be immobile like this. I did the reference books, novels, and books categories. I'll get to vehicles next, and if someone doesn't finish the others, I'll assist them eventually also. – Blue Rook 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)talk